Thanks, Obama!

[Denny Crane]

So, presumably, if economic policies under Obama discourage new employment and result in many unemployed dropping out of the counted workforce, there should be a major disparity in the rates of change between U-3 and U-6 over the course of the past 8 years, yes? Is there a reputable source for that data?

The gap between the two is what's significant, not the rate.

 

[Stevenson]

Denny - there is neither anything untrue nor hypocritical about saying the GOP were/are obstructionists. Mitch McConnell's famously admitted that that was the plan. When the Dems controlled congress, the GOP couldn't obstruct. But when they took over, they did, big time. Hence more executive actions.

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny - there is neither anything untrue nor hypocritical about saying the GOP were/are obstructionists. Mitch McConnell's famously admitted that that was the plan. When the Dems controlled congress, the GOP couldn't obstruct. But when they took over, they did, big time. Hence more executive actions.

It is both untrue and hypocritical.

Which is it? Obama's policies (which were obstructed) achieved whatever economic results you seem to like, or Republicans obstructing those policies led to these economic results.

Which is it?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

This is an awesome thread. Debating who kicked the can down the road the best. We might as well be 500000 trillion dollars in debt, and people are going to argue over which asshole was better? Fuck all of you.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

http://unemploymentdata.com/unemployment-rate/what-is-u-6-unemployment/

According to Shadowstats the government is really underestimating unemployment by even more than our numbers suggest since “long-term discouraged workers were defined out of official existence in 1994.” The new U-6 numbers only include short-term discouraged workers.

Note that shadowstats shows the unemployment rate relatively flat since 2009 at 22 – 23% primarily because of a declining Labor Force Participation Rate.

I don't think I'm as inclined to give full weight to the ShadowStats rate as you are. Check out this commentary thereon.

http://www.economonitor.com/dolanec...ch-of-an-alternative-measure-of-unemployment/

The bottom line here is that the ShadowStats alternate unemployment rate of 23 percent for May 2015, and similar rates for other recent months, are completely implausible. To get an unemployment rate that high, we have to include millions of people who do not even claim to want a job, let alone make any effort to look for one. We have to assume that the status of long-term discouraged worker is a trap from which almost no one escapes from year to year, by finding work, by making even a single unsuccessful attempt to find work during the year, by changing their mind about wanting work, or by death.

 

[Stevenson]

When they had the chance to obstruct, they did. Apparently you are the only person who can't see that.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think I'm as inclined to give full weight to the ShadowStats rate as you are. Check out this commentary thereon.

http://www.economonitor.com/dolanec...ch-of-an-alternative-measure-of-unemployment/

Two points.

1) You got a graph of U3 vs U6 out of this
2) I read the commentary, in its entirety. I'm not swayed by it. Dolan mixes his terminology and confuses himself. All shadowstats is doing is counting those in the workforce who've been out of work for longer than a year. And you really should count, among those, the people who are on long term disability that aren't actually disabled.

 

[Denny Crane]

When they had the chance to obstruct, they did. Apparently you are the only person who can't see that.

You can make that claim. But if you do, all Obama's successes that aren't things he can do without congress are thanks to that obstruction.

If Obama got his way, things would be worse. The things he got his way on have demonstrably hurt economic growth. I've shown that already in this thread.

EDIT: Demonstrably thus:

 

[isonoob]

The idea of Obama was awesome but the execution, not so much.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Two points.

1) You got a graph of U3 vs U6 out of this
2) I read the commentary, in its entirety. I'm not swayed by it. Dolan mixes his terminology and confuses himself. All shadowstats is doing is counting those in the workforce who've been out of work for longer than a year. And you really should count, among those, the people who are on long term disability that aren't actually disabled.

I did, and thank you. Of course, I was conflating U6 with what ShadowStats tries to quantify. U6 is down significantly over the past 8 years. Shadowstats' estimate of LTDW suggests that actual unemployment hasn't decreased, but I buy Dolan's intimation that LTDW attrition is not being factored in to Williams' estimates, which is (to me) the biggest flaw in the data.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The idea of Obama was awesome but the execution, not so much.

I missed Obama's execution? Wow, the media really is liberally biased...

 

[isonoob]

I missed Obama's execution? Wow, the media really is liberally biased...

As I said his execution was disappointing. They had to tie the noose like six different times and the drop wasn't dramatic at all.

 

[Denny Crane]

I did, and thank you. Of course, I was conflating U6 with what ShadowStats tries to quantify. U6 is down significantly over the past 8 years. Shadowstats' estimate of LTDW suggests that actual unemployment hasn't decreased, but I buy Dolan's intimation that LTDW attrition is not being factored in to Williams' estimates, which is (to me) the biggest flaw in the data.

LTDW is by definition, "attrition"

The gap between U3 and U6 would diminish if those people are finding jobs. It naturally is going to decline as anyone gets a job. All of U3 decline is included in U6.

Also, people would take Obama's 52 week unemployment benefits and then cheat to get onto SS long term disability to keep getting benefits. And medicare goes along with that for free.

So U3 and U6 are not counting 5M or more people who are "disabled." It's probably a wash with whatever Dolan thinks is being overstated.

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

As I said his execution was disappointing. They had to tie the noose like six different times and the drop wasn't dramatic at all.

Worst EDM Obama song ever.

 

[donkiez]

When they had the chance to obstruct, they did. Apparently you are the only person who can't see that.

You are arguing perspective with DC. Obstruction is not considered obstruction by those who think the GOP were saving the country from Obama.

 

[Denny Crane]

You are arguing perspective with DC. Obstruction is not considered obstruction by those who think the GOP were saving the country from Obama.

That's not at all the question.

If republicans obstructed, then Obama didn't (couldn't) do anything. Thus any economic pluses would be due to Obama not getting his way.

Or if Obama got his way, then he gets credit for the economy, but saying he was obstructed is bullshit.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[donkiez]

That's not at all the question.

If republicans obstructed, then Obama didn't (couldn't) do anything. Thus any economic pluses would be due to Obama not getting his way.

Or if Obama got his way, then he gets credit for the economy, but saying he was obstructed is bullshit.

Can't have it both ways.

Nice new twist you added. Sure you can have both, because the answer is not as simple as you make it appear with that line of questioning. The economy is quite a bit more complex than that and is influenced by many things. What's the quote here "Only a sith deals in absolutes." DC, are you a sith lord?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

When they had the chance to obstruct, they did. Apparently you are the only person who can't see that.

Name one thing they wanted but tried to stop cuz Obama.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nice new twist you added. Sure you can have both, because the answer is not as simple as you make it appear with that line of questioning. The economy is quite a bit more complex than that and is influenced by many things. What's the quote here "Only a sith deals in absolutes." DC, are you a sith lord?

"Republicans obstructed Obama" is an absolute.

I added no "twist."

Whatever they all did combined to give us whatever good/bad economic effects we see.

What exactly did Obama do to give us this "awesome" economy? He had all his budgets rejected, so it wasn't his spending ideas.

He did trash W's last budget and asked for an $800B increase (from $3.0T to $3.8T) in January of 2008, right after taking office. That was with democratic 60 vote senate and democratic house. Add it up: $800B in bloated spending for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 so far. So credit him with the massive debt he's leaving the next president.

 

[Road Ratt]

Reagan is known as one of the top Presidents of all time. For me he is probably top 10ish. Please tell me why you think he is the worst.

When Reagan took office America was the worlds leading lender. By the time he left office he had raised America's debt by 189% and America was now the worlds biggest borrower. That's just one of the many reasons Ronald Reagan was the worst president ever.

The Iran/Contra affair made Reagan a traitor to his own people. He should have been forced to resign over it.

http://www.alan.com/2011/02/05/the-truth-about-ronald-reagan-that-conservatives-ignore/

http://www.examiner.com/article/8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-the-worst-president-of-our-lifetime

 

[Denny Crane]

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Stevenson]

And on top of everything, he talks in measured tones, like a president should (cough cough). He's prudent. Loves his charming wife. Clearly a great dad. Great kids. No scandals.

 

[Mediocre Man]

When Reagan took office America was the worlds leading lender. By the time he left office he had raised America's debt by 189% and America was now the worlds biggest borrower. That's just one of the many reasons Ronald Reagan was the worst president ever.

The Iran/Contra affair made Reagan a traitor to his own people. He should have been forced to resign over it.

http://www.alan.com/2011/02/05/the-truth-about-ronald-reagan-that-conservatives-ignore/

http://www.examiner.com/article/8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-the-worst-president-of-our-lifetime

LOL

 

[Denny Crane]

And on top of everything, he talks in measured tones, like a president should (cough cough). He's prudent. Loves his charming wife. Clearly a great dad. Great kids. No scandals.

No argument on those points. Though he simply is wrong headed.

Again, I ask the question: why is Hiliar considered a crook by so many and nobody thinks that of Obama?

 

[Denny Crane]

When I was much younger and just married with a baby on the way, our apartment was destroyed by global cooling. The roof was flat and the snow and ice got so heavy the ceiling caved in.

There was a farm across the street that was bought and turned into a subdivision. The builder built one street with town homes on either side before going belly up in those awesome Jimmy Carter years. One was for sale and we made a full price offer. The home was $52,000 and we had to come up with $2800 down payment. The seller was so desperate to sell that he paid the closing costs (thanks Carter!).

You could hardly call us "rich" - our combined take home gross pay was $16,000.

When we applied for the loan, the interest rate was at 18 3/4% (thanks Carter!). In the 90 days it took to close, the loan fell to 12 1/8 % (thanks Ronnie Reagan!). That saved us ~$450 a month in interest.

It is just outright absurd to say Reagan only helped the rich. He helped EVERYONE.

No amount of taxes he settled for (he had a hostile congress) made up that $450. We came out ahead.

All that is true.

What the economic data from his terms shows are that what was true for me was more true for people of color. For them, they rose from the bottom quintile of earnings to higher ones faster than white people did.

He ran against the ERA and then appointed Sandra Day O'Connor as the first woman to the supreme court. The anti Reagan propaganda will only mention the ERA bit. Some of us are not fooled.

In his debate with Carter, Carter made a huge gaffe. Said something about asking his daughter Amy for advice on how to save the world from the threat of nuclear annihilation. Reagan did save the world from that threat. He talked really tough against the commies and then met them face to face and negotiated peace with them.

He made one of the greatest speeches in history at the Brandenburg Gates at the Berlin Wall. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." He offered peace and friendship to his enemies. And FREEDOM.

He worked with Tip O'Neill and saved Social Security. The propaganda is that he wanted to end it. In his "time for choosing" speech in 1964, he railed against Social Security being a ponzi scheme. It was sold to the people as a retirement plan and then in the courts the government claimed it was a welfare plan. The people would never have gone for it as a welfare plan in those days, we had to be lied into it. What Reagan wanted all along was for it to be solvent and to stand on its own. And for it to provide better benefits for retirees.

As he put it in 1964, "A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due—that the cupboard isn't bare?"

The social security surpluses were required by law to be invested in government T-Bills. That surplus money went into the treasury and got spent by the Democrats who ran congress. Reagan submitted budgets to congress each year and each time the Democrats declared them D.O.A. and wrote new budgets with their own spending priorities. Reagan vetoed 39 times but had to settle some of the time to get his own legislation passed (something Obama never figured out, something that Clinton did brilliantly). Those surpluses made it look like Clinton was running surpluses, but in actuality, the debt rose in every year Clinton was president (because the SS surplus invested in T-Bills which is DEBT).

"Trickle down economics" did work. Though that is a loaded phrase to describe what really happened.

Revenues doubled and congress TRIPLED spending. There was a kind of economic war between the parties. Reagan told Tip O'Neill, "I'm going to take away your allowance." Democrats were so determined to undermine Reagan that their failures earned him the nickname of the "teflon president."

Debtor nation? That can be good and bad. It's bad if you're a 3rd world nation, which we nearly were under Carter. There wasn't much of a surplus in that regard in the first place - less than what we spent on foreign aid. What it meant was that the Reagan economic boom was so great that foreigners wanted to invest here, and americans invested here too instead of overseas. It was great, not a negative.

He warned us that times would get worse before getting better. There was a significant recession right away as he predicted. Then things took off. His economy added 24M new jobs. Most of those jobs went to women who joined the workforce in large numbers and were empowered. That 24M job figure not measured from the highest point in unemployment in 1983, but true net jobs gained. The figures people throw around for Obama are not net jobs, but from when we hit the worst of the unemployment after the recession.

The debt? He inherited deficits and debts from Carter. The amounts were smaller because the economy was in ruins, but it was still there and structural. The rate of deficit and debt increase was much better in the 8 years of Reagan than the 4 years of Carter. That is, the debt doubled in 4 years of Carter and should have gone up 4x (2x then another 2x each term) but went up 3x.

Since Reagan left office, there have been 16 years of democrat presidents (Clinton and Obama), and 12 years of republican presidents (Bush I, Bush II). The debt has increased 7x.

AIDS

Regardless of whether Reagan talked about it or not, he did something about it. He spent ever increasing amounts of money on researching treatment and a cure. The amounts were appropriate for a disease that killed very few early on and the amounts grew to far more than was spent to research bigger killers (cancer, heart disease, etc.) as more people died from AIDS.

http://www.amfar.org/thirty-years-of-hiv/aids-snapshots-of-an-epidemic/
In 1982, there were 618 deaths from AIDS and 771 total cases reported.
In 1985, there were 12,529 deaths and 15,527 cases reported. This is when he made his first speech about it. By then, funding for research had increased 20x.

Reagan gave amnesty to 3M Mexican immigrants. What's not to like about that?

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama bailed out the banks and wall street and auto companies. All the while, people had their homes foreclosed upon by those banks. Their credit ratings destroyed for years so they couldn't buy a new home even if their fortunes improved.

Thanks Obama.